House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 May 1993

Column 763

fishing boats are tied up in port and our fishermen watch the fish being caught by French, Dutch and Danish fishermen?

Our fish are caught none the less. The conservation damage is caused none the less. The fish are caught in French, Dutch and Danish nets. They will simply not be caught by British fishermen, to be landed on the British market for the British industry. That is all that the Minister will achieve. He will give a bonanza to the Europeans, who are effectively uncontrolled because policing at their ports is not so strong, effective or clear-cut as in Britain. Can the Minister tell us that the fish that are not caught by our industry and are caught by our competitors will be effectively controlled at the port of landing? Of course he cannot. The Spanish will have a bonanza thanks to the order. The fish will die none the less. Limiting days at sea is a wrong approach to the problems of the industry and it will bankrupt large swathes of it. The far more effective approach that the Minister should take is to consult the industry and work with it to impose conservation measures by selective gear--by increasing mesh sizes, using square mesh panels and implementing all the measures that the fishermen have proposed over the years.

Mr. Curry : Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?

Mr. Mitchell : The Minister did not give way to me, so I shall not give way to him : I am sorry.

Only selective measures can achieve proper and effective conservation. The crude measure that the Government have introduced cannot do so. It will simply drive fishermen, when they are allowed to put to sea, to catch as much as they possibly can of everything they possibly can. That is the inevitable consequence of the measure.

Having obtained the powers, the Minister should consult the industry so that proper and effective conservation can be achieved. He should work out a joint approach with the industry. That is the only way to do it. The Minister is going in for a Ceausescu approach to the problems in the fishing industry.

There is a problem with the vessels that have caught non-pressure stocks and, therefore, have not been required to keep records. Some allowance has to be made for such vessels. The only way to do so is to give them a notional allowance. They cannot be asked to develop records that do not exist.

The Grimsby fishing industry fishes by passive fishing with large mesh sizes of more than 110 mm. It is conservation conscious. It is a conservation-effective industry. When the Minister comes to exercise discretion--as he will, because at some stage he will have to discriminate- -he should advance the claims of those sections of the fishing industry that are the most conservation conscious and conservation efficient.

I make a plea to the Minister. The measure came before the spirit of the Newbury noes. It is the sort of authoritarian measure that the Prime Minister has told us, having heard the voice of the people, the Government will avoid. They will consult and work with people. They will not be authoritarian. They will not impose their wishes on the people any more. Why does not the Minister join in that process in dealing with the fishing industry ? I give the

Column 764

assurance that, if he does not, the fishing industry will be sour, intractable and unco-operative and there will be enormous difficulty in implementing the measure.

The order will require massive bureaucracy. It will require much extra spending that would not be necessary if conservation were achieved with the co-operation of the industry. That is my plea to the Minister. He has the powers. He should hold off and co-operate with the industry to get a better deal.

I also make a plea to Conservative Members from fishing ports. There is an enormous weight of responsibility on their shoulders. There are not many Members of Parliament from fishing constituencies. Fishing is a beleaguered industry. Conservative Members would not do this to any other section of the communities that they represent. Those Members would not require pubs, banks or shops to close three or four days a week. They would not dare to do that. Why do that to the fishing industry? Why do they treat the industry in that fashion? The industry does not have many people to speak for it and those Members should have the guts to speak for it tonight.

10.59 pm

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : I do not know why the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed at me in particular as he concluded his speech, because my opposition to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 and to the order is well known and recognised.

I do not record my opposition to the Act in a boastful spirit, but with great sadness. I agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and I also agreed with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, although he was far too emotional about the subject.

When the Act was passed, I had hoped that the relevant orders, of which this is the first, would not be introduced to implement the powers under it. I had hoped for a response from my hon. Friend the Minister and from the industry so that we could avoid implementation of the restrictions on days at sea through the imposition of a compulsory tie-up. I honestly do not believe that the orders and the Act represent the right way in which to achieve conservation. If I thought that they would work, I would join my hon. Friend the Minister in the Lobby. I do not believe that they represent the right approach. [Interruption.] I ask Opposition Members to be quiet, please. This is a serious matter and they are not helping the fishing industry.

The need for conservation is beyond doubt. My hon. Friend the Minister is right about that and the industry also acknowledges it. If I am critical of my hon. Friend the Minister--I believe that he has been treated unfairly in this business and that a lot of unnecessary blame has been put on him--I am also disappointed that that industry has not responded with counter- proposals to the tie-up.

When the fishermen held a large rally in Westminster Hall in July, I was greeted with fairly cheap applause, because I had done that popular thing by opposing the then Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. I said to those fishermen that they should not applaud me because their industry not only had to oppose the Bill but produce

counter-proposals. It is a source of great sadness to me that it has not done that with a united voice.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : Yes, it has.

Column 765

Mr. Harris : My good friend from Scotland says that it has. I accept that that is true of certain areas and I pay tribute to the leaders of the fishing industry in the south-west, who have produce alternatives, at least tentatively, to solve this difficult subject. They have suggested closed areas in which no fishing should take place in spawning seasons. That is eminently sensible. I also agreed with their suggested technical measures.

The industry, unfortunately, has not spoken with one voice and that is why, over the years, it has done itself a great disservice. The lack of unity has been apparent on many issues apart from conservation. I realise that there are as many different views about fishing as there are fishermen in any port, but the industry must get together, particularly in the light of what the Government are imposing tonight.

If the industry produced viable proposals and if my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government were prepared to listen, we could develop a better means of conserving fish than that proposed.

I welcome the setting up of the conservation forum. I agree that it will not be easy to get agreement in it, but I again echo what was said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby--we really must try, even at this late hour, to secure agreement on other ways of approaching conservation.

In commending the order, my hon. Friend the Minister said that its objective was to protect our fish by our means for our fishermen. The difficulty, particularly in an area like area 7, the south-west, is with the last bit of that objective, "for our fishermen". In area 7, for the most important species, we have in some cases only 12 per cent. of the total allowable catch and the rest belongs, in quota terms, to the boats of other member states. If our fishermen are prevented from fishing to the full, others will go on fishing and fish will not be conserved.

My hon. Friend the Minister is going to get up and I will certainly give way to him. I pay tribute to him because he has said that he will recognise these regional differences, and that is a very important point. I come back to a point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). We cannot impose a national system of control here. We need to approach the problem in a regional fashion. The situation in my part of the world is completely different from the situation in Scotland. We must therefore have regional flexibility. I know that my hon. Friend is working on that, and I think that he wants to intervene.

Mr. Curry : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no wish to take up his time. On the share of stocks in the south-west, I recognise that it is a different fishery from the fishery around the north-east coast, areas 4 and 6, where the stocks are the most vulnerable, but the 12 per cent. figure must be treated with some care. The United Kingdom's share is as follows : sole in the western channel, 59 per cent.; sole in the Bristol channel, 28 per cent.; plaice in the English channel, 29 per cent.; nephrops in area 7, 33per cent.; and mackerel in the western area, 56 per cent. Boats in the south-west catch much higher-value species than do those fishing off most of the coasts.

Mr. Harris : I accept that, and my hon. Friend will note that I picked my words with some care and used the phrase "for the most important species". But the point has been made.

Column 766

After dealing with the general point, I turn to some detailed criticisms of the order. The first point has already been made fairly by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East : how on earth we are to give days at sea to those people who have no track record through log books? That difficulty will cause enormous friction because to some extent the decision will be arbitrary.

There is also the cost of implementation. The Ministry has used a figure of £1.5 million a year, but I believe that the cost will be much higher than that given in the explanatory memorandum. Then there is the biggest issue of all for me when it comes to unfairness--the wretched flag of convenience quota-hoppers. How on earth are we to impose days at sea restrictions on boats that come out of Corunna or Vigo? We cannot put those restrictions on them, and my hon. Friend and his officials know that. Therefore, I am not prepared, on that ground alone, to support a measure in which we agree that, although the quota-hoppers are covered, there is not yet a means of controlling them but in which we are going to impose restrictions on my fishermen from Newlyn and fishermen from other ports around Cornwall. For that reason alone, I could not, in all conscience, vote with my hon. Friend the Minister, although I have the greatest admiration for him.

I beg my hon. Friend just to think again on this matter. There is still time. I beg the industry to give up the protests, put them on one side and start serious talks with the Ministry so that at last we can find a sensible solution to what is undoubtedly a difficult and complex problem.

11.9 pm

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is right to say that there should be serious talks. However, for the talks ever to take place, the Government must show a willingness to retreat from the hard-line attitude that they have taken, with their claims that effort limitation is the only way that they will achieve the necessary targets. They know that effort limitation will do precious little for conservation. The Minister talked about discards. I challenge him to show me one paragraph in the order that will make the least difference to the number of discards that are going back into the sea.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the route that the Government have taken is an inefficient way to pursue conservation ends. It ties up the capital of business men for days in a way that would be unacceptable in any other industry. The people employed on vessels will be unemployed for those days, and we know of the difficulties that many have experienced when they have tried to draw unemployment benefit for those days.

The Government's route is also an inflexible way to pursue conservation objectives. The hon. Member for St. Ives spoke of the western approaches. My understanding is that although, a year to 18 months ago, there was a view that boats should be tied up 30 per cent. of the days to meet conservation ends, that has now been reduced to 8per cent. There is no way that the order can take any account of those changes.

The Minister said that, when the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 was being drawn up, the quota for haddock in the North sea was small. That quota has now gone up from 55,000 tonnes to 133,000 tonnes, but we still have an inflexible system. The Minister said that he

Column 767

would not wish to see quota uncaught because boats were obliged to stay in port. I hope that, when he answers, he will tell us where that promise is implemented in the orders. Having a calendar year for days-at-sea restrictions that differs from the one for quotas will lead to confusion rather than to the flexibility that the Minister claimed that he wants.

Furthermore, the situation facing the pelagic sector shows how ludicrous the order is. We are told that the sector will be affected by days-at-sea restrictions as well, but why? The Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association has sent to some hon. Members a letter that it recently received, dated 11 May, from the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which says :

"on the basis of the information to hand, it seems as though the Pelagic segment has already reduced capacity since 1.1.92 sufficiently to meet the MAGP requirements."

Why, in heaven's name, is that sector having restrictions imposed on it when it has met multi-annual guidance programme requirements and when, on the evidence of last year's figures, it was not able to catch all the herring and mackerel in the quota when it had no restrictions? How will it be able to do that when it does have restrictions? The Minister must answer that fundamental question. I entirely endorse the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. He asked what was the logic of 160 half days. The Minister did not tell us. I suspect that it is a period that would not allow any boat to be viable if that were all the time that it was allowed to go out. However, there will be a number of add-ons. The Minister reaffirmed his commitment that there will be no order to reduce the number of days agreed for 1993 unless there is clear evidence that other countries are effectively implementing their MAGP targets as well. While our fishermen are restricted, it does not matter that other European countries are not effectively pursuing their MAGP targets, so while our fishermen are tied up, the fishermen of other EC states--Spain, France and Denmark--will be able to carry on fishing. Just because the Minister says that he will not bring in anything more restrictive, that does not hide the fact that there is no way in which our boats can increase the number of days when they can go to sea.

We shall have fixed and rigid restrictions which will mean the opposite of conservation for those who have relatively few days at sea. Those who in 1991 were running double crews and were at sea all the time will benefit, whereas the Clyde fishermen who tie up over the weekends will lose out. The boats with fewer days at sea will find that the monetary value of their licences will be devalued. When the Bill was passed in the other place, their Lordships insisted that the order could not be introduced until the Government had given due consideration to the contribution of decommissioning in promoting conservation. The Government believe that a few words in the preamble to the order represent a magic incantation which will get around the statutory hurdle. The Minister has a duty to tell the House what consideration the Government gave to decommissioning. Given the feelings in the industry, it is inevitable that someone will take the decision to judicial review. Following the decision in the House of Lords in the case

Column 768

of Pepper v. Hart that proceedings in the House can be used in evidence, the Minister should tell us what consideration was given to decommissioning.

The hon. Member for St. Ives highlighted the fact that it will be difficult to control foreign vessels or those flying flags of convenience coming out of other ports. They are getting a bonus from the orders as they are getting 1988 as their base year ; they are having their cake and eating it and the Government have not explained why.

There has been no explanation of whether oral evidence will be acceptable in the absence of written documentation. We believe that it should be and we hope that when regulations on the sea fish tribunals are introduced, it will be made perfectly clear that oral evidence will be acceptable.

What will we be saying that our fishermen should have been doing? The scheme envisages that British fishermen are a race apart, and in a sense they are, but they will need a practising lawyer on board to decipher some aspects of the order. In 1991, they needed to be fortune tellers to know that what they had to keep then would apply to them in 1993, and they will have to be the most brilliant businessmen to squeeze enough out of 160 half days a year to remain commercially viable.

The order is no way to approach fisheries conservation. The industry has called year after year for decommissioning. It has been supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The fact that for years the Government were deaf to their calls means that the industry is now being lumbered with a most inflexible and inefficient method of conservation which I believe will sour relationships between the Government and industry when what is needed is constructive dialogue.

11.17 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Hon. Members have mentioned the recent tragedy in Northern Ireland. I salute the memory of those two young men, one of whom was my constituent from Bushmills in County Antrim. He was a young man who wanted to fish from his earliest days. He went straight from school into a Government training scheme and for the seven years of his working life was engaged in fishing. He met with a tragic freak wave which swept him and his companion to their deaths.

The fishermen of Northern Ireland and their federation have stated that if the order is passed it will increase tragedies among fishermen by requiring them to fish in adverse weather conditions as there will be times when the only days when fishermen are permitted to fish will be those when the weather is bad. We have enough problems in the fishing industry without sending men out in adverse conditions.

The order will cause widespread unemployment among fishermen and the fish processing industry. It will also disadvantage British fishermen. I cannot accept the Minister's argument that he is preserving British fish ; he is preserving British fish for other European countries to fish them. The Minister's argument strikes me as very preverse.

The order will introduce an unjust system, forcing our fishermen to fish in bad weather at a time when United Kingdom fishermen must comply rigidly with the quotas--far more rigidly than any other EC fishing nation. It is no use the Minister talking to the French ambassador ; French fishermen will continue to fish in our waters while our boats are tied up. The Minister should withdraw the

Column 769

order and ensure that it is not introduced until all EC countries submit to the same rules. He should tell those countries that they would not have a common fisheries industry without our waters ; the British waters made that industry. The money to be spent on civil servants to operate the scheme should be transferred to the decommissioning scheme.

If we introduce conservation in the way suggested by the order, our fishing industry will have a sad future. The fishermen of Northern Ireland are totally opposed to the order.

11.21 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : It is a great shame that there has been so little time for The Opposition cannot support the order, for reasons given by hon. Members on both sides of both Houses. It is both bureaucratic and expensive. Will the Government provide financial help for the many fishermen who will have to appeal against it ? Will they note rulings made in the European Court about similar measures relating to allocation of days at sea for those who have no track records ? The measure will not necessarily meet conservation objectives ; it will discriminate against fishermen who have put less pressure on fish stocks, while rewarding those who have done the opposite. As has already been said, it has implications for crewing and safety, and it is not supported by any section of the industry.

The decommissioning element is grossly inadequate, amounting to £25 million over three years. The French fleet was given that much in a single year. There is also the issue of complying with assurances given during the passage of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. Under new section (6D)-- the Act amends an earlier 1967 Act--before considering the measure relating to days at sea,

"Ministers shall first give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning in order to acheive a significant reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet."

Where is that consideration ? Where is the "significant reduction" in the fleet ? A paltry £25 million goes nowhere near such an objective.

What about the Minister's assurance that there would be a level playing field between our fishing fleet and those of other European member states-- an assurance that he gave the House on 14 July last year ? While our fishermen face being tied up in port, their competitors are free to fish as widely as they wish.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?

Mr. Morley : I am sorry ; there is not enough time.

Because foreign fleets receive more generous funding, they are in a position to move into our fleets--to buy up British licences and expand their quota-hopping operations.

We believe that there is an alternative to this measure : working with the industry to introduce technical conservation measures, gear types, selectivity, and bans on industrial fishing. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) pointed out that fishermen themselves have suggested sensible measures, advocating retention lengths,

Column 770

minimum landing sizes and a ban on twin rigs. I believe that it is possible, by co-operating with the fishermen, to introduce measures that will work.

The measure is a marine set-aside without compensation. It is institutionalised bankruptcy for our fishing fleet. Many people have debts, having taken out loans to increase their capacity, supported by the very Government who are taking away the possibility for them to earn a decent living.

I urge all hon. Members to vote against the order. Let us reject it, not in a negative way but in a positive way to bring back to the House a decent measure which meets conservation objectives, which has the co-operation of all fishermen, which has the support of all sides of the House and which will meet the objects of a substainable fishing industry, which the order fails to do.

Mr. Salmond : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Feelings are running very high on this issue. Many hon. Members from fishing constituences have been unable to speak. Clearly the debate has not been extensive enough, given the importance of the issue. May I ask you to exercise your powers under Standing Order 15(2) and adjourn the debate to the next sitting day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am not prepared to exercise those powers. 11.25 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro) : I should say to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe(Mr. Morley) that the only way to bankrupt the fishing industry is to ensure that there are no fish. That is what is so sad about the debate. As one who has been involved in conservation legislation, both privatee Members' Bills and Government legislation, in the House over 20 years or more, I find it sad to hear Opposition Members bandying the word "conservation" about while not being prepared to put forward any scheme that will work.

If we are to maintain a sound fishing industry, it is essential that we conserve fish. On legislation dealing with livestock, we have always taken scientific advice. The scientific advice in the fishing world shows that our stocks are vulnerable and that we have to conserve them very carefully. We must accept that neither total allowable catches nor the quota can do the job alone, and that the methods in the order are the best way forward.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr) : My hon. Friend talks of conservation. In the Clyde, the fishermen took heed of that. They imposed their own weekend ban over a number of years. Now that means that they have not got days at sea recorded in 1991. Will my hon. Friend confirm that consideration will be given to that point and that he will take positive account of the days when they could have been at sea which were not recorded because of that self- imposed ban for conservation purposes?

Sir Hector Monro : The fishermen in the Clyde will be able to have the same fishing pattern as they did in 1991 but, as they have a statutory ban, which is an exceptional circumstance, we can consider it under paragraph 9(2)(d). We shall certainly consider it carefully under the special exception clause.

Mr. McGrady rose --

Column 771

Sir Hector Monro : The main message that Opposition Members do not seem to appreciate is that there will not be a reduction in fishing effort ; there will merely be a standstill on where we were in 1991. We would not reduce the amount of fishing effort without bringing forward an affirmative resolution. There is no possibility of a reduction in fishing effort taking place without further debate in the House.

Mr. McGrady rose --

Sir Hector Monro : I hope, too, that Opposition Members will appreciate the exceptional care and trouble that will be taken in reaching the days at sea arrangement. The Department will be writing too all licence holders, who will have time to respond to the details on the computer printout and subsequently have discussions with the Department before the number of days at sea on the licence is fixed. Subsequent to that, they will have a right of appeal to the tribunal.

We had demonstrations last winter about running out of quota. The worst way to react now would be to have a free-for-all, with no check on fishing around our coast. We are putting forward a practical conservation package. It would be foolhardy to throw that out tonight. I hope that the House will support the order, in the interests of conservation.

Question put :--

The House divided : Ayes 258, Noes 283.

Division No. 265] [11.30 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Mrs Irene

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ashton, Joe

Austin-Walker, John

Barnes, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Beggs, Roy

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, Andrew F.

Benton, Joe

Berry, Dr. Roger

Betts, Clive

Blunkett, David

Boateng, Paul

Boyce, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Burden, Richard

Byers, Stephen

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Canavan, Dennis

Cann, Jamie

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Coe, Sebastian

Cohen, Harry

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corston, Ms Jean

Cousins, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Dafis, Cynog

Darling, Alistair

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Denham, John

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Donohoe, Brian H.

Dowd, Jim

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eastham, Ken

Enright, Derek

Etherington, Bill

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Fatchett, Derek

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fisher, Mark

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Next Section

Home Page